Guess What? Lance Armstrong is Still a Sociopath

I was all set to post a tiny link to a recent interview on pezcyclingnews with former US pro, Mike McCarthy. McCarthy was an interesting track-to-road “cross-over” (a designation he rightly rejects in the interview, by the way) in the mid-80s to early-90s, often gracing the pages of Winning magazine. And, the track-to-road path is going to be discussed quite a bit this next month, with Brad Wiggins now a bona fide Tour threat. My little tidbit of note was that, like a number of former American pros and cycling big-wigs from that era and just beyond (e.g. Jim Ochowicz, Darren Baker, ??), McCarthy apparently ended up with a job in finance through, you guessed it, Thom Weisel. I know the whole omerta/mob thing with cycling, doping and US Cycling gets tiring…but, shit, if it isn’t true that Weisel’s money and power weren’t/aren’t the tentacles running through the sport for the last 25-30 years!

However, what comes along but the US Anti-Doping Agency’s much anticipated case against Armstrong and, as it turns out, Bruyneel, Ferrari and a number of other doctors and trainers (first came out in Washington Post, so here’s the original).

The usual “let it alone/it serves no purpose/why just Lance?” talk is of course bubbling up (articulated, for instance, and in typically overblown and just-a-little-too-wordy fashion, at Red Kite Prayer). But, I’m having none of it. Sure it drags on; that’s Armstrong’s fault, largely. Everyone else confessed and ate their big bowl of shit, it’s Armstrong who keeps pushing it back away from his place setting.

The thing I get most irritated by – and this brings us back my whole “Armstrong is a sociopath” meme (ok, it was like two blog posts) – is the endless sanctimonious duplicity from him. It was only a month or two ago that we got (in the aftermath of the federal inquiry being mysteriously dropped) the “I’m not fighting it any more” line – classic “I’m bigger than this and walking away” talk from Armstrong. But, of course, Armstrong had an immediate and aggressive response to yesterday’s announcement. We will see, though, if this is actually followed up with any true resistance to the USADA proceedings and hearings.

The most interesting bit from the USADA material is that they directly allege blood manipulation from his comeback period as well. You know, the comeback that was intended to “prove to his children” (a rough quote, but that was basically what he said) that he was a clean winner, dispel all the doubts, etc., etc. The irony – and the indicator for a sociopathic disregard for risk and the reality of how others might actually perceive you – is that the comeback was what actually set the Landis confession in motion and kept the inquiry relevant and alive. On top of that, and despite the massive attention devoted to the comeback, Armstrong still had the confidence to think he could play the “preparation” game and it would never get out. With everyone else having confessed, and now Bruyneel pulled in on this inquiry (and the speculation about him stepping out of Radio Shack/Trek/Whatever It’s Called already beginning), I’m not sure what options Armstrong has left. I figured that last interview, with the “no more fighting” talk, indicated a strategic non-resistance strategy, leaving Armstrong open to the option of saying “I’ve got this black mark from USADA…but I didn’t even contest that, so it’s a technical rather than substantive smudge on the record”. So, we’ll see what the real strategy is, rather than just the rhetoric, as the process drags on.

bb

Advertisements

Armstrong Inquiry: Ferrari’s Shadow World

Been a while since any of the global inquiry into the Armstrong/USPS/Doping stuff has bubbled up. But now, we see that Italian newspaper reports Armstrong linked to Ferrari through cash payments. Nothing too crazy there, just your run-of-the-mill offshore shadow corporation designed to keep clients at a safe arms-length from the biz. And, while they are at it, shelter income and transactions from taxes and government oversight.

Compare this to the shoddy idiocy of the Operation Puerto run by Dr. Fuentes in Spain and the difference is stunning. Fuentes was faxing full (albeit slightly disguised with a cereal-box code level of secrecy) drug and training regimens directly to riders like Hamilton (using his wife’s full, but maiden, name as the recipient), at their own apartment buildings and homes! At least Ferrari had/has the sense (safe to assume he is probably still doing this shit, given Armstrong was still consulting with him in 2010) to build in a few rings of security between “No. 1” and the clients.

Gotta wonder how long it is until these indictments from the federal inquiry finally drop – I would assume we are in the range of just a few months at this point.

bb

Sociopaths We Have Known: Armstrong, Part Deux

OK, this Landis interview with Kimmage is fantastic – the most useful and important thing on pro cycling to have come out since, well…probably Kimmage’s “Rough Ride” book.

Here he is being questioned about his story of arriving in Austin for USPS bonding/training camp, piling into Armstrong’s SUV and watching as Armstrong speeds through town, running red lights, to get to a strip club. His earlier comments on this had been that he could see the discrepancy between Armstrong’s public persona and private personality, but that this wasn’t inherently problematic for him. This is what he refers to in the first few lines below. However, what is so interesting (to me) is that Landis is pretty much arguing exactly what I said a while back as evidence for Armstrong being a kind of sociopath: the brazen disregard for what regular people would consider to be completely reckless behavior, particularly for those trying to get away with things that are socially unacceptable. As Landis points out, here is a guy (Armstrong) with so much to lose, who doesn’t know Landis from a guy on the street, and he immediately brings him into the fold.

You were seeing it first hand?

Yeah, there was more to it than there appears to be and that’s fine, if that’s the way it has to be. I never had any experience with the press at all, so I didn’t know how hard it is to actually do what he was doing; to live one thing and manipulate it into another; to maintain a story like that, that was nearly 100% fabricated; to live such an obnoxious life and not even try to hide it. I mean, I’m a guy that he has never really even met; he didn’t give me any sort of period to prove that I was trustworthy; he just threw me in the car and went to the strip club. So this was a guy that wasn’t even trying to hide it and yet somehow the story stayed the same; this guy is going around acting like an asshole and we got another story over here and it’s a good story – he’s motivating people and giving them hope. I live my life the way I want to and I’m not going to judge him for what he wants to do but I know one thing – these stories don’t add up.

bb

via NY Velocity.

**Update: as noted in the comments below, I had previously posted on Armstrong as sociopath a while back here on BliggityBlog**

Michael Creed: Why I Never Doped

Of course there was temptation and huge temptation. I had a lot personally because I don’t see doping as a moral thing. I don’t see taking drugs as a moral flaw.“That sounds weird but I’ve seen guys who have really good morals do some bad stuff in cycling. And guys that don’t dope do some really bad things in life. So for me it wasn’t a moral thing. If I did it I wasn’t going to be a bad person.

Interesting interview with Creed over on CN. Only wish it were longer! This is pretty much my stance, and, I believe, the only way out of the “moral” morass of doping in cycling.

bb

via Cyclingnews.com.

Doping: Vaughters and Garmin Edition

We cannot change what happened in the past. But we believe it is time for transparency.
We expect anyone in our organization who is contacted by any cycling, anti-doping, or government authority will be open and honest with that authority. In that context, we expect nothing short of 100% truthfulness – whatever that truth is – to the questions they are asked. As long as they express the truth about the past to the appropriate parties, they will continue to have a place in our organization and we will support them for living up to the promise we gave the world when we founded Slipstream Sports.

It’s been pretty cycling/doping/Landis/Armstrong-heavy here on BB, but I really do believe this is a pivotal, potentially watershed, moment for pro cycling.

I feel bad for Vaughters and Garmin/Slipstream in this case. Vaughters has not tried to really hide his own doping during one part of his career, but now he has to walk this fine line between taking a hard line against doping now and not sounding like a liar/hypocrite. Yet, the only way he, thus far, could hope to keep Garmin doing is by not directly addressing his own guilt with respect to doping.

I would hope that the Landis Affair might open up the space needed for guys like Vaughters to come clean but in a serious, non-moralistic or non-absolutist way. Of course a bunch of American douchebag fans will still yell that anyone who ever doped should never be let back in….but what do these morons expect? It is only those who have actually confronted the reality of pro cycling and ALL of its cultural practices who can be expected to come up with realistic solutions to the sport’s problems (if we think of doping as a “problem” – and I’m not necessarily convinced we need to do that).

VeloNews.com

bb

Sociopaths We Have Known: Lance Armstrong Edition

Was going to post on this issue before the Tour started, but didn’t get around to it…and wasn’t sure if I cared enough! The run-up to the Tour this spring was, of course, filled with lots of talk about whether Lance Armstrong (LA) would be leader/win again/etc. Scratching the surface, however, there was also mounting evidence that things could get ugly in the next year if Greg LeMond’s (GL) lawsuit against Trek continues to move forward.

The basic gist of that one is that GL is suing/counter-suing (I’m sparing you the details) Trek bikes claiming that they intentionally screwed up his bike brand (which they owned) because LA was angry about GL’s comments about LA and allegations or doping – stretching back to the early years of the LA Tour dynasty. Trek claims the opposite, that LeMond wasn’t holding up his end of the bargain on promotion, etc., thus undermining Trek’s business interests. Whatever the cause, LeMond bikes no longer exist.

The reason this has gotten uglier and uglier is in GL’s insistent collection of evidence in support of allegations that LA did indeed using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), at least at some points in his career (both pre and post cancer, most likely). Nothing here is radically new for those who have followed the David Walsh-style investigative inquiry into LA: most of the same evidence and arguments (positive result at ’99, multiple positives for EPO in analyses run on Armstrong’s “b” samples from earlier Tours, multiple confessions/convictions by former teammates, lots of talk about doping methods at Postal by others in the biz, etc.). To his credit (or folly, depending on your perspective) GL simply hasn’t backed down from this and, in fact, has really intensified his claims now that the gloves are off with Trek and LA. Most notably – and in questionable moral and legal judgement – LeMond released a detailed phone conversation he secretly (and in direct contradiction to what he told the other party) recorded with a woman who worked for Oakley as LA’s personal liaison and was apparently in the room during the notorious LA confession to his doctors about PED use as part of his very original cancer diagnosis and work-up. The short story is that she had told people privately that LA confessed to PED use while in the hospital (the same story repeated by Andreu husband and wife, who were there), but ultimately testified that he did not. However, in GL’s phone conversation, she admits that she lied under oath, for understandable reasons (single mom with a long-time job at stake, etc.).

What I find most intriguing/perplexing in all this is the underlying irrationality of someone like LA thinking that he could actually control information so completely as to eliminate any possibility that the truth would eventually sneak out. My view is obviously motivated by my belief that Lance Armstrong did indeed use PEDs and other forms of doping (e.g. blood transfusions). On sporting grounds, this does not really bother me – but this is the subject of a future post. What bothers me is the self-serving deception on the part of LA. Choosing to dope does not seem strange or surprising, but why would you think that you could actually conceal this forever, particularly as you become one of the most famous sportspeople in the world? It just doesn’t compute; after all, LA knows about this confession issue, and there are likely a good number of people in the know about transfusions and other funny business from the Postal years.

The only answer I could really come up with before the Tour is that LA is essentially a sociopath – or at least has a good dose of anti-social personality. I am by no means the first to suggest this, but it just seems clearer and clearer the longer things go on. Suffice it to say, I was thrilled to see Contador beat the crap out of Armstrong in the 2009 Tour. Contador was amazingly poised, attacked when he needed to, and then presided over a pretty dismal time trial by Armstrong in the final week (a tt he absolutely demolished). Now, a bit more of the behind the scenes stuff from the Tour and Astana is trickling out, and things sound much, much worse than they appeared during the Tour. In a translated article from El Pais posted by nyvelocity, we see all sorts of powerplays by LA at Astana. In light of these revelations, Contador’s performance is even more impressive. I only hope he can find a good enough team for support next year, just to come back and serve LA’s ass on a platter.

The entire LA comeback strikes me as fundamentally sociopathic. Here the guy has the greatest record of all time in the Tour, fame, fortune, etc. and probably the knowledge that there are many out there who hold his secrets. Yet, he decides to reopen all of these issues and relationships by deciding to comeback in order to promote his supposedly morally-driven crusade. This is hubris of a stunning sort. The guy quietly knocks up a girlfriend, has a baby a month or a bit more before the Tour (which, by my reading, has NEVER been discussed), rules with an iron fist in the team when, in fact, he is the weaker rider, and then engages in all sorts of sneaky behavior to undermine Contador. This, to me, is anti-social behavior. And, the sooner LA is gone from cycling (again), the better.

bb